Issues on Greek Migration Trends and Policy Considerations

Issues on Greek Migration Trends and Policy Considerations by Dr. Gregory T. Papanikos* ABSTRACT This study offers a new estimation of the total number of foreigners that live and work in Greece. Three types of immigrants are identified: legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and temporary immigrants that come to Greece disguised as tourists. Using data from different and independent sources, the total number of all types of immigrants is found to be close to 2.3 million people. In addition, the impact of immigrants on the Greek economy is briefly examined and three policy initiatives are proposed to increase the number of skilled migrants. Furthermore, this paper examines the national immigration policy and makes a point towards a common immigration policy at the level of the European Union. Acknowledgements: This paper was presented at London School of Economics as an invited Public Lecture of the Hellenic Observatory of the European Institute on the 11 th of March 2003. I would like to thank all the participants and particularly Professor Kevin Featherstone and Dr. Dimitri Papadimitriou. Dr. Athanasios Papaioannou from the Greek Economic and Social Committee has contributed to the policy section of this paper. Barbara Georgopoulou, Zoi Boutsioli and Dimitra Lampropoulou provided excellent research assistantship. This work has been financed by the European Commission (Budget Line: B3/2000). All caveats apply. * The author is the Secretary General of the Greek Economic and Social Committee and the Director of the Athens Institute of Education and Research

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. An Estimation of Immigrants in Greece 3. The Impact of Migration on the Greek Labour Market 4. Migration of Skilled Workers 5. Greek Immigration Policy 6. Towards a Common European Migration Policy 7. Conclusions 2

1. Introduction The main focus of the paper is to estimate the number of immigrants that work and live in Greece and consider national migration policy within the context of the European Union (E.U.). This paper examines recent trends in Greek immigration and then discusses a number of issues relating to the impact of immigration on the Greek labour market. The issue of developing a common European migration policy is also discussed. However, a number of important issues are not the subject of this paper such as the issues that relate to: asylum, racism, demographics (ageing), government budget, health system, education system, pensions, income distribution and migration impacts on economic growth and inflation. International migration has been the main focus of policy makers at all levels of government: local, regional, and national as well as of international entities such as the E.U. In Greece, the migration issue has become the number one priority of the Greek presidency of the European Union for the first six months of 2003. Formulating a common European approach to migration policy is an objective that the Greek policy makers want to promote during their presidency of E.U. An important aspect of formulating a common migration policy is to regulate the inflow of illegal migrants that have become a headache for the Greek authorities given the geography of the country and its immense size of borders, including hundreds of desert islands. These illegal migrants come from the politically unstable and war torn regions of Asia such as Iraq, Kurdish regions, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. The problem is aggravated by the economic situation in the Balkan countries such as Albania, FYROM, Romania and the countries of Eastern Europe, i.e. Ukraine and Moldavia. Even countries such as Poland and Russia are an important source of illegal immigration to Greece. The extent of illegal migration requires a reconsideration of the national migration policy. Such a policy has been debated in almost all OECD countries and policy makers have to be very careful in designing an effective and efficient immigration policy. An important aspect of such a policy concern is the economic and social integration of migrants in their host communities. The issue of legalization is not as important as the issue of social acceptability. In France migrants are legal but their social and even economic integration is questionable. In Greece, there is a growing concern about these issues and the need to legalize migrants should be accompanied by policies of social and economic inclusion. 3

A number of studies have examined various aspects of legal and illegal immigration in Greece but two are considered relevant to this study. The Lianos et. al. (1996) study used sample survey data collected for four northern Greek provinces. They found that the productivity adjusted wages of illegal migrants were 40-60% lower than the equally skilled Greeks. The difference accounts for the social security contributions. The same study found that Greek workers would not have done a great proportion of jobs done by illegal immigrants. Thus the displacement effect is very low. The more recent study of Sarris & Zografakis (1999) used a computable general equilibrium model. They have showed that illegal migration to Greece decreases real disposable income of two classes of households among the fifteen examined. Those households are unskilled, with low or middle income. However, they account for the 37% of the Greek population that might explain the negative attitudes of some part of the Greek society towards immigrants. As the authors claim, these distributional effects are moderated, if the bottlenecks in the Greek labour market are taken into account. This study emphasizes the role of social partners in implementing an effective and efficient national or European migration policy. Large associations of social partners have emphasized the importance of a full integration - social and economic - of illegal and legal immigrants in Greece. In a recent conference organized by the Greek Economic and Social Committee 1 in Athens, the Greek and European social partners had an opportunity to debate a common European migration policy. The new approach in policy making that has been initiated after the Lisbon Meeting of the European Council, the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC), can be used as a useful policy tool in designing and implementing migration policies that aim at integrating illegal and legal immigrants successfully. The purpose of this paper is to provide such a useful framework for discussing migration policy in the light of the open method of coordination. An integral part of this framework is the position adopted by social partners at the national and European level, particularly those that represent trade unions and employees associations. 1 See ESC (2003). This conference was organized under the auspices of the Greek Presidency and the financing of the European Commission. All large organizations of the Greek economic and social life participate in the Greek Economic and Social Committee. For more information about its structure please visit its site www.oke.gr. 4

This paper is organized in seven sections including the introduction. Section II attempts to estimate the accurate number of foreigners in Greece using secondary data from the National Census and the Greek National Tourism Organization. Section III analyses the impact of immigration on the Greek labour market. Section IV examines labour migration. This is an important issue that has received great attention among the advanced countries of OECD, particularly because they expect a great shortage of skilled labour in the coming years. Section V provides a framework for building a national Greek immigration policy and section VI investigates the possibility of developing a common European immigration policy using the Open Method of coordination. Section VII concludes. 2. An Estimation of the Number of Immigrants in Greece There are no reliable data on the total number of immigrants that live and work in Greece. Table 1 reports the percent of immigrants to total Greek population since 1951, using census data. From less than one percent prior to 1971, it reached 1.8% in 1981 and 1.6% in 1991. According to the recent national census (2001), there were about 800 thousand immigrants in Greece. This amounted to 7.3% of the total Greek population and about 15% of the Greek labour force. Theoretically, this number includes both legal and illegal immigrants. However, it is very doubtful that any illegal immigrants were registered and a number of legal immigrants might have avoided registering as well. Thus, if we add the illegal immigrants reported by Tapinos (2000) 2 and by a recent study commissioned for the Greek Trade Unions 3, then the actual figure is about one million people. This study claims that this figure is a substantial underestimation of the actual number of foreigners that live and work in Greece. According to Albanian sources, reported in Martin (2002), the number of Albanians in Greece amounted to a total ranging between 400,000 and 600,000. The same source claims that half of them are illegal which is approximately the number mentioned by Tapinos (2000) for all illegal immigrants in Greece. Given that a great portion of illegal immigrants come from non-balkan countries such as from Asia (Kurds from Turkey, Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis etc.), the total number of illegal 2 Tapinos (2000) has reported that the number of illegal immigrants in Greece account for the 3% of the total population or 300 thousand people. 3 See the study by Bagavos. & Papadopoulou (2002). 5

immigrants should be at least twice as high as the one reported by the previously mentioned studies. In total, more than 1.5 million people should be working on a permanent basis in Greece. Table 1. The Total Registered Number of Immigrants in Greece, 1951-2001 Year Greeks Foreign Born Total Population Immigrants as a percent of Total Greek Population 1951 7602230 30571 7632801 0.4% 1961 8333817 54736 8388553 0.7% 1971 8767073 92568 8859641 1.0% 1981 9568993 171424 9740417 1.8% 1991 10092624 167276 10259900 1.6% 2001 10166987 797093 10964080 7.3% Source: ESYE, Census data and own calculations. The above number can be documented by another, more reliable and independent source. Both legal and illegal immigrants can send their children to elementary schools 4. According to a sample survey done by Giannakaki (2003) in 2000, reported in Table 2, the percentage of non-greeks in public elementary schools in Attica was 13%. A simple approach is to assume that the 13% of the immigrant student population represents the actual population of all immigrants in Greece. Given that the actual population in Greece was 10,939,771 in 2001, the total number of immigrants would be about 1,422,170. This includes both legal and illegal immigrants. Given that the legal immigrants are 797093, the number of illegal immigrants is estimated as the difference: 625,077 (1,422,170-797,093). There are a number of methodological problems with this estimate that require certain assumptions concerning (a) the average size of a Greek and a non-greek family and (b) the geographical allocation of immigrants. There is no question that the average number of children for an immigrant family is higher than the national average which is close to 2 children. However, according to official data collected through the legalization process of migrants in 2000, 51.2% were married which is an upward biased number given that migrants with families will have an incentive to be legal residents. In addition, a number of immigrants have been married fictitiously to 4 The only certificates required for register a child in Greek elementary schools, according to the Article 7 of the Presidential Decree 201/98/FEK161A are (a) birth certificate (b) an address of local residence (c) health certificate to verify if the child has been immunized. 6

obtain legal status, particularly women that work in nightclubs and do not have children. According to the same source of data, 59.89% of immigrant women were married and 48.49% of immigrant men. According to National Census data, in 2001 the number of married households was 2446539 out of 3203834 or 76%. In terms of the number of people the percentage was 87%. This figure is for the total number of people who lived in Greece in 2001, including both natives and immigrants. Thus, the percentage of married native households will be higher than the 75% and of course much higher than the percentage of married immigrants of 51.2%. It is safe to assume that the average family size of an immigrant household is not higher than the average size of a Greek one. Table 2. Ethnic composition of the pupil population by school sector in Attica, 2000 Ethnic group Public schools Private schools Total Count % Count % Count % Greeks 28,496 84 7,934 99 36438 87 Non-Greeks 5,373 16 65 1 5389 13 Total 33,869 100 7,999 100 41827 100 Source: Giannakaki (2003). The second problem is the geographical distribution. Table 3 reports census data on the geographical distribution of immigrants in 2001. Almost half of them lived in the area of Attica, 47.26%, while the total population of Attica accounts for the 34.4% of the overall Greek population. This is census data and does not represent the true population of Attica. The actual number is much higher. Many residents of Attica are registered in their villages. During an election period, the number of people that leave Athens is very high and accounts for more than one million people. 5 It is then estimated that half of the Greek population lives and works in Attica, the same percentage as the one for immigrants in Greece. 5 According to unofficial data from the Ministry of Interior, the number of people that voted in the elections of 1999 for the European Parliament, living in Attica but have voting rights outside the region was about 300 thousand people. The average abstention rate was 74% and therefore the total number of people living in Athens but registered outside the region is 400 thousand. If we assume an average family size of 2.5, then the total number of people will be one million. 7

Table 3. Distribution of Immigrants by Greek Regions, 2001 Region Number of immigrants % of Immigrants % of Total Region s Population Attiki (Athens) 376,732 47.26% 10.01% Sterea Ellada and 49,187 6.10% 5.92% Evvoia Peloponnisos 81,679 7.07% 7.07% Ionia Nisia 20,524 2.57% 9.63% Ipeiros 17,067 2.14% 4.82% Thessalia 33,782 4.23% 4.48% Makedonia 125,973 15.8% 5.19% Thraki 5,743 0.72% 1.58% Nisia Aigaiou 40,911 5.13% 8.04% Kriti 45,495 5.7% 7.56% Source: ESYE, National Census. The estimate of 1.5 million immigrants is a stock figure and does not capture the total number of foreign workers that work in Greece on an annual basis. To get the actual number, one should estimate the number of people that arrive in Greece to work for a period less than a year. This is the case in the agricultural sector where the seasonal nature of this work permits such a pattern of employment. After they finish, they return back home and come in the next year s season. These people would come to Greece every year with a tourist visa. Table 4 reports official data on tourist arrivals from selected Balkan and European countries. The numbers are striking. In 2000, the last year for which figures are available, the total tourist arrivals from Albania were 717,000 people or 5.5% of the total Greek international tourist arrivals. Given that this number includes the number of repeated trips that the same person does during a year, the actual number of persons traveling from Albania to Greece is much lower. If we assume that the same person comes on average 2.5 times a year as a disguised tourist and the actual number of tourists is negligible (no more than 10%), then 258,000 Albanians visited Greece in 2000 to work on a temporary basis. This is in addition to 400,000-600,000 Albanians, that permanently live and work in Greece. For the other countries reported in Table 4, it is safe to assume that each tourist arrival represents no more than 2 visits per year 8

because of the distance involved. These assumptions are based on the process of obtaining visas which cannot exceed two visas per year. An average of 1.5 visits per person is assumed. Thus, the number of non-albanians that come to Greece as temporary workers disguised as tourists are estimated to be around 614,000 people. In total, temporary workers disguised as tourists amount to 872,000. Table 4. Arrivals of Foreign Tourists from Selected Balkan and Eastern European Countries (BEEC), 1991-2000 (Thousands) Country 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Albania 238 128 192 299 586 673 717 % 2.2% 1.3% 2.1% 3.0% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% Bulgaria 158 141 145 134 136 155 182 197 203 240 % 2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.8% Yugoslavia 271 261 231 199 202 103 159 % 2.5% 2.6% 2.5% 2% 1.9% 0.8% 1.2% FYROM 378 87 128 234 % 3.8% 0.8% 1.1% 1.8% Ukraine 11 11 13 27 28 33 35 % 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Russia 101 129 181 201 127 105 102 % 0.9% 1.3% 2% 2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% Poland 48 44 34 31 50 89 102 123 115 154 % 0.3% 0.5% 1% 1% 1.1% 0.9% 1.2% Romania 18 20 19 25 39 51 52 63 73 99 % 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% Total BEEC 224 205 198 811 754 912 1440 1413 1433 1740 Total 8036 9331 9413 10642 10130 9233 10070 10916 12164 13095 Source: Greek National Tourist Organization and own calculations. The total number of arrivals excludes cruises. The number of immigrants in Greece is given by the sum of legal migrants, illegal immigrants and temporary workers disguised as tourists. The total number of foreign workers in Greece is given in Table 5. The estimated number of all foreign workers is 2,3 million people. This includes the legal immigrants (34.74%), the illegal immigrants (27,25%) and the temporary foreign workers that come to Greece disguised as tourists (38,01%). The great majority of the latter category finds employment in the agricultural and in the resort hotel industry. Also, a considerable proportion of the illegal immigrants work in the same sectors. The distribution of immigrants between economic sectors is discussed in the next section of this paper. 9

Table 5 An Estimate of all Foreign Workers in Greece, 2001 Type of Foreign Workers Number Percent Legal Immigrants 797,093 34.74% Illegal Immigrants 625,077 27.25% Immigrants Disguised as 872,000 38,01% Tourists Total 2,294,170 100 3. The Impact of Migration on the Greek Labour Market A number of studies have attempted to evaluate the impact of immigrants on the Greek labour market. Unfortunately, most of these studies are very descriptive and lack a sound theoretical and empirical basis. Two studies that have already been mentioned in the introduction of this paper can be considered as an exception. The Sarris and Zografakis (1999) study is more comprehensive and estimates the impact on the national labour market while the Lianos et. al. (1996) study is only for Northern Greece. Both studies deal with illegal immigration. Both found that the impact is restricted to unskilled labour with strong distributional impacts for this category of labour. Agricultural households tend to benefit from illegal migration. For the entire economy the impact is positive. Table 6 reports data on employment of foreigners by economic sector for the advanced countries of OECD. Two countries report a very low percentage of immigrants that work in the agricultural sector: Greece and Portugal. The data represents legal immigrants. As it was mentioned in the previous section, most of illegal immigrants are concentrated in the rural areas. Thus, most of the illegal immigrants and the temporary workers that come as disguised tourists are employed in the Greek agriculture and the resort hotel industry. On average, foreign workers have a much higher unemployment rate in E.U. countries relative to native workers. Figure 1 reports these differences. In Greece, the national unemployment rate is close to 10%, while the rate for immigrants exceeds the 15%. However, this might not be the true number, given that a lot of these immigrants might work in the underground economy or are moonlighting. 10

Table 6. Employment of Foreigners and Nationals by Economic Sector a (Proportion of total employment of foreigners and nationals, 1995-1998 average) Agriculture Industry Services Foreigners Nationals Foreigners Nationals Foreigners Nationals Australia 2.2 5.8 26.7 20.7 71.1 73.4 Austria 1.3 7.6 42.0 29.2 56.7 63.2 Belgium 1.1 2.7 35.9 27.1 63.0 70.3 Canada b 2.4 4.7 24.6 19.6 73.0 75.7 Denmark 4.4 3.9 22.9 26.6 72.7 69.5 Finland 3.6 7.7 23.5 27.6 72.9 64.7 France 3.2 4.8 38.2 26.0 58.7 69.3 Germany 1.4 3.1 46.3 34.1 52.3 62.8 Greece 3.9 19.9 41.3 22.5 54.7 57.6 Ireland 3.7 11.0 25.2 28.3 71.2 60.8 Italy 6.8 6.6 34.9 32.2 58.3 61.2 Japan c 0.3 5.5 64.1 61.6 35.6 33.0 Luxemburg 1.6 3.8 28.3 20.0 70.1 76.2 Netherlands 2.1 3.8 28.3 22.9 69.7 73.4 Portugal 1.9 12.8 38.8 32.5 59.3 54.7 Spain 7.5 8.5 20.7 30.1 71.8 61.4 Sweden 1.5 3.3 27.2 25.7 71.3 71.0 United Kingdom 0.7 1.9 20.2 27.4 79.1 70.7 United States d 4.2 2.4 26.2 22.6 69.5 75.0 Total e 3.3 4.3 29.2 27.4 67.5 68.4 a) For each country, the two columns represent breakdowns for foreigners and nationals respectively (foreign-born and natives for Australia, Canada and the United States). b) 1996 c) Foreign employment refers to June 1997. National employment refers to total civilian employment for the period 1995-98. d) 1997 e) For those countries shown in the table, and, where applicable, for the dates noted in the above footnotes Source: Coppel, J.et.al. (2001), p.12 11

Figure 1 Foreign-born and Native Unemployment Rates Average 1995-98, as a per cent of the foreign born and native labour forces 1 Data refers to 1996. 2 Data refers to 1998. 3 Data refers to 1995-97. 4 Data refers to 1997. 5 Data refers to foreigners and nationals, instead of foreign-born and native Source: Coppel, J.et.al. (2001), p. 17. In concluding this section, it can be said that the overall impact of immigration in Greece can be considered positive. However, this impact depends very much on the type of immigrants entering the country. According to data reported by the Ministry of Labour during the period of the legalization process of 2000, only 8,89% of immigrants have received tertiary education. Half of them had elementary level of education and 37% have finished secondary schools. The positive economic impact of immigration is at its maximum when skilled workers are entering the country. This issue is taken up in the next section. 4. Migration of Skilled Workers The migration of highly skilled workers such as graduates and post graduates of universities and colleges is an important policy issue and constitutes a great part of the current debate on migration policy in the advanced countries. A number of OECD countries are facing a great shortage of skilled labour, particularly in the area of 12

information technology. One way of mitigating this shortage is by immigration. Actually, in the short run it is the only policy that can be followed to meet the high demand. In the long run, the native population can be trained, assuming that it possesses the required talent. Skilled migratory labour helps the host country to stimulate its innovation capacity, to increase the stock of human capital and to internationally disseminate knowledge. In a recent OECD (2001) study on international mobility of the highly skilled workers it was emphasised that: The policy objectives regarding the immigration of highly skilled workers in most OECD countries are threefold: i) to respond to cyclical labour market shortages; ii) to increase the stock of human capital; and iii) to encourage the circulation of the knowledge embodied in highly skilled workers and promote innovation. The share of skilled foreign workers in the labour market varies considerably across countries but is growing in most OECD countries. In some, inflows of this category of workers are constituted mainly by immigrants admitted on the grounds of family reunification or for humanitarian reasons (refugees and asylum seekers). Many countries are affected both by the emigration and immigration of skilled workers, but it appears that the brain drain has been overestimated in developed countries, notably because the return rate is high. Temporary labour migration is becoming increasingly frequent, especially in Australia and the U.S. The economic downturn that started in spring 2000, notably in the US high-technology sector, may trigger a readjustment of the flows. The mobility of skilled labour may have an impact on inequalities, for example by reducing them when skilled emigrants return home, and on the long-term equilibrium of the labour market (incentives to invest in initial and vocational training). Figures 2 shows the share of highly skilled foreign workers in employment in selected E.U. countries and Figure 3 the corresponding numbers of Australia, Canada and U.S.A. Overall, in E.U. countries the share of skilled workers is below the total 13

share of foreign workers. On the other hand, in Australia, Canada and U.S. it appears that there is a relevant balance between skilled and unskilled immigrants. In Greece, the highly skilled workers represent one-third of the total share of immigrants in total employment. Figure 2 Share of Highly Skilled Foreign Workers in Employment in European Member Countries, 1998 BAR: share of non-nationals in highly skilled employment DOT: share of non-nationals in total employment Source: OECD, based on data from the Eurostat Labour Force Survey, March 2001 In the coming years, the demand for highly skilled workers will increase, putting a lot of pressure on both the developed and developing countries. Migration of skilled workers does not take place only from developing countries to developed countries but from developed to developed countries as well. The competition between the advanced countries is expected to intensify. As it is mentioned in Cervantes & Guellec (2002), in 2000 the British government launched a five-year program aiming at attracting Britain s leading expatriate and top young researchers to the U.K. Also in 2000, the US congress announced a raise in temporary work visas granted to highly skilled professionals from 115,000 to 195,000 per year until 2003. The United States attracts the great majority of foreign skilled workers. 14

Concerning this impact, Greece is the home country rather than the host country of highly skilled workers. Even though there are no comparable data, it is more that evident that many Greeks that study abroad, mainly in U.K. and U.S.A., are offered wages and types of jobs that make them stay in these countries. This brain drain is expected to intensify in the future because of the E.U. that facilitates the free movement of labour. The challenge for Greek policy makers on migration is threefold. First, they must follow a policy that encourages foreign skilled workers to come to Greece, either on a temporary or permanent basis. Second, it should minimize the impact of brain drain, ensuring that the high talented Greek scientists return home after they finish their studies abroad. Most of them have studied with funds provided by Greek tax-payers, including family income. Third, a policy aiming at attracting Greeks of second and third generation back to Greece from traditional advanced countries such as U.S.A., Canada and Australia. Figure 3 Share of foreign-born highly skilled employment (last year available) BAR: share of non-nationals in highly skilled employment DOT: share of non-nationals in total employment Source: ABS Labour Force Survey. August 2001 (Australia); 1996 Census (Canada); Current Population Survey. March 2000 (United States) 5. Greek Immigration Policy 15

A comprehensive historical account of Greek immigration policy is given by a recent study of Getimis (2002) that was done for the Operational Programme for the immigrants in Greece, commissioned by the Ministry of Interior. It is not the purpose of this study to summarize the development of migration policy in Greece. Instead, emphasis is put on the role of social partners in promoting an effective national migration policy. On the 27 th and 28 th of February 2003, the Greek Economic and Social Committee organized an international conference on migration. The basic conclusions were the following: Migration is not a temporary phenomenon and national and international policies must be developed in the medium and long term perspective. National policies should give incentives to immigrants to become registered and legalized. Simple registration procedures and equal working and insurance rights are the keys to stimulate registration. Measures of integration should not only target the economic and labour aspects of migration but also the cultural ones. Non-government organizations should play a vital role in the process of integration and should address themselves not only towards the immigrants but towards the citizens as well, as they are dominated by prejudices and stereo-types with racist underpinnings. The government should formulate and enact comprehensive housing and educational policies for the integration of immigrants. The E.U. must deal with the causes of immigration, mainly war and poverty. The latter requires a common foreign policy with an emphasis on the preservation of peace world-wide. Pertaining to the poverty, the increase of development assistance will not be enough. It must be accompanied by the control of the ultimate use of the funds provided. Human trafficking can only be tackled with international co-operation. The Palermo Protocol of the United Nations must be applied by the Governments. The E.U. borders control is an important issue. Its cost must be shared by all member-states, whether they have external boarders or not. The E.U. policies concerning the integration of migrants must be accelerated and they must become a policy of its own and not just a part of other policies. 16

From the above conclusions, it is evident that the social representatives of the Greek society, think that the national migration policy is not sufficient. What is needed is a common European migration policy. This policy is the subject of the next section. 6. Towards a Common European Migration Policy The purpose of this section is not to provide a detailed review of the European migration policy. A recent review is given by Stalker (2002). Table 7 is from this study and gives an overall historical account of E.U. s approach to migration flows. In the Tampere European council Meeting in October 1999, it was agreed by the E.U. Head of States that they needed: A common migration policy to balance humanitarian and economic concerns; Reinforcement of actions to combat illegal immigration; Fair treatment for third country nationals; Development of partnerships with countries of origin and transit; A separate common policy for asylum that fully respects the Geneva Convention and Member States obligations under international treaties. So far very little progress has been made. Pratt (2003) identified the following areas where progress has been made: Legislation on common asylum has been drafted but still under discussion. A proposal on family reunification has been adopted by the Commission but difficulties exist from Member States due to differences in definitions of family. A directive adopted by the Commission but not by the Member States, for admission for employment and self-employment, is limited to establishing a uniform application procedure and a common legal status of immigrants admitted. Decisions on how many economic migrants to admit, if and when they are needed for identifying sectors where shortages exist, and for selection 17

of qualified people, remain the responsibility of the Member States. Needless to say progress on this front has been slow. Proposals for the status of long-term residents were put forward in March 2001, and a deadline of June 2003 for the adoption of the Directive was set by the European Council in June 2002. The directive concerns movement between Member States, change or residence among Member States, and uniform rights of long-term residents. Proposals for conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals for study, vocational training, or voluntary service, have been adopted by the Commission but have not been adopted by the Council yet. A directive on admission of third country researchers is currently under preparation by the Commission. Policies for combating illegal immigration, for integration of migrants, and for partnership with third countries in this field, have been discussed, but have not as yet resulted in any draft directives. In a recent paper presented by Sarris (2003), it was suggested that a number of aspects should be taken into account in formulating a common European immigration policy. These aspects relate to the following issues: There exists very little movement of labour between Member States despite the differences in labour market characteristics: unemployment rate, pensions and wages. The low population growth in E.U. and the ageing of population. The types of skills shortages. Illegal trafficking and the cost of labour movement from the developing countries. Temporary versus permanent immigration. Illegal immigration The latter is considered a very important aspect. Sarris (2003) suggests a number of interventions to combat illegal immigration such as border enforcement (he questions its effectiveness), control of domestic employers, legalization or amnesty, 18

collaboration with receiving and sending countries and control accessibility to welfare, health and education services. Table 7. Migration Policy in the European Union Year* Event Outcome 1958 Treaty of Rome Set up the European Economic Community and established that a citizen of one member country could travel to another country to work or seek work. 1976 Trevi Group A meeting of ministers to promote cooperation on issues of law and order ( TREVI now stands for Terrorisme, Radicalisme, Extremisme et Violence Internationale). After 1986 this becomes an ad hoc group of ministers responsible for considering immigration questions, particularly illegal immigration, among other things. 1985 Schengen Accords An agreement to remove all border controls while attempting to strengthen the common external frontier. Originally signed by six countries in 1985, the current signatories are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. 1987 Single European Act The member states of the EU declared their intention to create a unified market. The Act also amended earlier treaties to ensure further cooperation on foreign policy. 1993 Treaty on EU The Maastricht treaty extended cooperation to political activities, including foreign policy. This treaty also lifted the remaining restrictions on migration from Spain and Portugal to other EU countries (SOPEMI, 1999). 1997 Dublin Convention An attempt to harmonize policy by requiring asylum seekers to apply in the first EU country they enter, still not in effect. 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam Placed issues relating to immigration and asylum under the jurisdiction of the EC and incorporated the Schengen Accords into the EU; included an agreement to achieve minimum standards in asylum policies and practices by 2004. 1999 European Council meeting in Tampere Established the need for a common European policy on asylum and immigration and asked the European Commission to draw up proposals on asylum, refugees and immigration. 2000 Nice Treaty This included a Charter of Fundamental Rights that says that non-eu nationals with residence or work permits should eventually have the same freedom of movement as EU nationals. 2001 European Council meeting in Laeken * In the case of treaties this refers to the year in which they came into force. Source: Stalker (2002) Failed to agree on greater cooperation on immigration or asylum policies. 19

Sarris (2003) makes the following suggestions concerning a common European immigration policy: 1. There should be a two-tiered immigration strategy within the EU. The first part should relate to needs of the upper skilled range of the EU labour market, while the second part should relate to the low skilled part of the labour market. 2. The policy relevant to the high skilled immigrants should be dictated by the changing needs of the firms within the EU, much like the current UK highly skilled migrant program. An important modification in a EU-wide policy should be the freedom of movement within EU member states of those admitted as highly skilled professionals by any one country. 3. The regulation of the flow of immigrants destined to fill low skilled occupations within the EU, irrespective of whether the actual education or skill mix of the prospective immigrants is higher than the job they fill, should be governed by an entirely different set of principles, as this flow is the main source of illegal immigration. 4. A policy of auctioning or pricing the worker permits should be coupled with stronger internal enforcement by work site inspections. 5. The EU-wide immigration policy advocated here should be combined with policies of collaboration between the EU and sending countries, not only in the field of controlling emigration, but mostly in the field of development aid. 6. The policy of auctioning or selling work permits at an EU level should be coupled with the freedom of movement of these workers within the EU. Since it will be difficult to estimate the various low skilled labour market needs of each Member State exactly, small errors and resulting imbalances could be accommodated by allowing the free movement of such immigrants. The above suggestions made by Sarris (2003) are an attempt in formulating a common European immigration policy. However, what is important for any policy to be effective is the extent to which these suggestions are socially accepted. In this context, any European immigration policy must have the consensus of the social partners particularly those that are mostly affected by immigration. A useful tool in 20

formulating such a consensus is by the open method of coordination (OMC). OMC is an alternative to the traditional methods of regulations and directives. The 2000 Lisbon European Council Meeting set out a stage to stage approach in applying this method: 1. The Council of European union adopts a common set of guidelines. 2. Indicators are set to compare best practice. 3. Guidelines are translated into policies at the national level with the member states submitting a National Action Plan on Immigration to the European Commission outlining their policy objectives and strategies for the immigration policy area over a specific time-period. 4. An annual process of monitoring, evaluating and peer reviewing is taking place and the findings publicly are made available in a Joint Report by the Council of the European Union and Commission. This method has been applied to employment policies and there is now discussion to be applied to other policy areas such as health, education and pensions. A common European policy on immigration should be based on the OMC. 7. Conclusions The most important conclusion of this paper relates to the estimation of the total number of immigrants that live and work in Greece on a permanent and a temporary basis. Three types of immigrants have been identified: legal immigrants that account for the 34.74% of total immigrants in Greece, illegal immigrants that account for the 27.25% of the total and immigrants disguised as tourists that amount to 38.01%. All these add up to 2,3 million people which is our estimate of foreign immigrants in Greece for the year 2001. The 800 thousand reported by the National census of 2001 includes only the legal immigrants. The second important conclusion of this study is the need for a common European immigration policy. A suggestion of the elements of such a policy has been identified in the recent literature. However, the argument made here is that for any common policy to be effective at the E.U. level it requires a decision making process that is known as the open method of coordination. In other words, for an immigration policy to be effective, a social consensus is required. 21

Finally, this paper examined the impact of immigration on the Greek labour market. These impacts are relatively negligible in terms of displacing native workers. An important point was made for developing a national migration policy that will aim at increasing the percentage of skilled Greek workers. Their means were suggested. First, foreign skilled workers should be encouraged to immigrate to Greece, either on a temporary or permanent basis. Second, the brain drain should be reduced, ensuring that the highly talented Greek scientists return home after they finish their studies abroad. Third, an attempt should be made to attract Greeks of second and third generation in the advanced countries such as U.S.A., Canada and Australia. 22

References 1. Bagavos, C. & Papadopoulou, D. (2002). Migration Trends and European Migration Policy. Athens: INE (Report No. 15). In greek. 2. Cervantes, M. & Guellec, D. (2002). The Brain Drain: Old Myths, new Realities. OECD Observer. Electronic Version. 3. Coppel, J., Dumont, J.C. & Visco, I. (2001). Trends in immigration and Economic Consequences. OECD Economic Department Working Papers No. 284. 4. Economic and Social Committee of Greece, ESC (2003). Proceedings of the International Conference on Migration: The Economic and Social Integration of Migrants. Athens: Greek Economic and Social Committee. 5. Getimis, P. (2002). For the Immigrants in Greece. Study prepared for the Ministry of Mnterior as part of the Operational Programme entitled For the Immigrants in Greece. Mimeo. 274 pages. 6. Giannakaki, S-M. (2003). Primary School Management and the Implementation of Innovative Educational Programmes: A Comparison of Private and Public Schools. Ph.D. Thesis. Faculty of Education: University of Strathclyde (forthcoming). 7. Lianos, T., Sarris, A.H. & Katseli, L.T. (1996). Illegal Immigration and Local Labour Markets: The Case of Northern Greece. International Migration. Vol. 34, pp. 449-483. 8. Martin, P., Martin, S. & Pastore, F. (2002). Best Practice Options: Albania. International Migration. Vol. 40, pp. 103-118. 9. Niessen, J. (2002). Consultations on Immigration Policies in the European Union. European Journal of Migration and Law. Vol. 4, pp. 79-83. 10. OECD (2001) International Mobility of the Highly Skilled. Paris: OECD. 11. Pratt, S. (2003), Update on the development of the common policy on immigration and asylum, background paper for the Workshop on "Managing Migration for the Benefit of Europe", held in Athens, on January 31 and February 1, 2003. 12. Sarris, A. (2003). Towards a European Union Immigration Policy Paper presented at a Conference organised by the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union on Migration, held in Athens on February 27-28, 2003. 13. Sarris, AH. & Zografakis, S. (1999). A Computable General Equilibrium Assessment of the Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Greek Economy. Journal of Population Economics. Vol. 12, pp. 155-182. 14. Stalker, P. (2002). Migration Trends and Migration Policy in Europe. International Migration. Vol. 40, pp. 151-179. 15. Tapinos, G. (2000). Illegal Immigrants and the Labour Market. OECD Observer. Electronic Version. 23